My general rule now is that if you are not being hooted at or verbally abused by at least one car in ten, you are not being seen. Where you need to be to be seen is also where some motorists feel you are threatening their space. A reassuring blast of horn tells you that you are where you need to be.

Heathrow expansion announced: only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money.

horizon wrote:I do wear a hi-viz waistcoat: that's to lend me some authority when taking the primary position. Psychologically it says, "He abides by the rules as I can see his Highway Code approved hi-viz vest so what he is doing must also be by the rules...". Who knows?

Ah but your man Walker would say that the motorist will think you an experienced and capable cyclist and thus will assume that you need less room when they overtake.

Hi viz clothing my rear end matey. Driving with care and well within the limits of control are what's needed.As a passenger in my partners big heavy car and her as a driver, we frequently travel at night and have little difficulty picking out the low viz no light ninjas round Manchester and as she doesn't race around like a blithering idiot, has the ability to stop or manoeuvre around everything else, including other idiot drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. Small furry animals too sometimes :pUntil the driving masses get it into their thick skulls to drive safely, we could be lit up like the proverbial Christmas tree and still be hit.

Bill

“Ride as much or as little, or as long or as short as you feel. But ride.” ~ Eddy Merckx

When did bright clothing become Hi Vis? Blue is not marketed as such is it?

On problem I have with the victim blaming statements is if you just advise people to follow the Highway Code you are now doing this.

I would rather people did not become victims but know that cars are here to stay and some drivers should not be driving them. But they are and no amount of shoulda woulda coulda or wishfull thinking is going to get rid of them.I just hope that wearing reasonably coloured clothing fit for the conditions might just help me not be a victim.

Si hit the nail on the head earlier. There is a world of difference between "I don't trust drivers to look properly or drive at an appropriate speed so I wear this gear which I hope they will notice" and "that cyclist who got hit last week by the driver who wasn't looking and travelling too fast is partly to blame because he wasn't wearing this gear"

I've mentioned it before, but the same thing happened with rear lights, of course. The CTC was worried about their introduction at the time, not because of lights per se, but because the bar would be raised in the same way. Lights were intended to give cyclists extra safety, but would quickly become simply something that they had to have to be regarded as visible at all.

You'd be pushed to find anyone, even on here, who would now talk about lights in the terms in which Si wrote about clothing, but there's a case for doing so.

As others have said, none of this is arguing against cyclists using lights and visible clothing; it's just an argument that measures to gain extra visibility should be regarded as giving extra visibility.

I've long since maintained that anyone who cannot see a cyclist with no rear light would not be able to see a pedestrian, unconscious person, pothole, fallen tree, animal or whatever else was in the road in front of them. So yes, an invisible cyclist with no rear light is fairly good evidence of inadequate observation

If a motorist has poor powers of observation, you're in trouble, hi-viz or not hi-viz. True.

But, equally, while I'm not going to be talked into wearing hi-viz when I think it's unnecessary, no more am I going to be talked out of wearing hi-viz when I think it helps. In dark or poor light situations when I'm driving - well, I've up till now (thankfully) always seen a cyclist in good enough time to avoid hitting them. Even the dark-clad, unlit, ninja types - yes they do show up in one's headlights - eventually. But a cyclist with reflective clothing and good lights, shows up that few seconds earlier. Gives me more time to plan my manouevre past that cyclist, assuming I'm going to overtake. That makes it less stressful for me, the motorist. If it's less stressful for me, it's less stressful for other drivers. And the less stressed-out motorist is less likely to have an accident further down the road - and less likely to get involved in road rage either.

So my yellow jacket will continue to find its use. On my ample chest and behind. At least until the clocks go forward. I would be happy if other cyclists did the same, though I'm not about to lecture them.

I also don't find it comfortable reading all the disparagement of hi-viz that's appeared on this thread. But that's what forums are about, I suppose.

mjr wrote:Is there really much difference between saying you think it's clever to wear it and saying you think others should wear it?

If you think that crazy clothing is the right decision, you're probably going to think anyone who doesn't wear it has made an incorrect decision, aren't you?

Undoubtedly. I think there is a difference between thinking that something is advisable and thinking that someone has a responsibility to do something (and is thus to some degree negligent if they don't). I have no doubt that the shift between the two views relates to how common the action is. A good example is hi-vis pedestrian attire for walking roads at night. Many would think it advisable yet most people don't bother so it is viewed as being a good thing to do rather than a requirement for safe walking. As more cyclists have taken to hi-vis and helmets they have gone from being viewed as rather OTT to being the actions of a responsible cyclist. Those that haven't adapted have gone from being normal cyclists to irresponsible cyclists through no change in their own behaviour.

It seems to be an odd irony of cycle safety that each action we take to improve our own safety eventually leads to an increase in our own obligations to the extent that just getting on your bike without dressing for the occasion has come to be viewed as irresponsible. If we wish to look to the future we need only look at those who find the roads too unsafe to cycle on. Those people mitigate the risks by not riding a bike. Aren't we irresponsible for not taking this simple safety step?

Also think non-standard bike.I ride a low recumbent so most my back is covered by the seat back.So even if a wear a hi vis jacket, most of it is not visible.I also don't like long sleeves on a jacket as it makes getting to the elbow locks a bit more difficult.

What we don't need is some form of law/compulsion like the pedal reflector law which is impossible to comply with if on a bent.

Bicycler wrote:I've long since maintained that anyone who cannot see a cyclist with no rear light would not be able to see a pedestrian, unconscious person, pothole, fallen tree, animal or whatever else was in the road in front of them. So yes, an invisible cyclist with no rear light is fairly good evidence of inadequate observation

+1

Bill

“Ride as much or as little, or as long or as short as you feel. But ride.” ~ Eddy Merckx

Bicycler wrote:I've long since maintained that anyone who cannot see a cyclist with no rear light would not be able to see a pedestrian, unconscious person, pothole, fallen tree, animal or whatever else was in the road in front of them. So yes, an invisible cyclist with no rear light is fairly good evidence of inadequate observation

But ... You can't really expect someone driving a motor vehicle to maintain a high level of concentration all the time surely? A momentary inattention* is considered normal now, hardly blame-worthy except by those imposing insupportable expectations on drivers. Cyclists must be made to understand that, if they insist on riding where cars belong, they voluntarily take the risk of such understandable mishaps.

[/bitterness]

*say 9 seconds, covering 160+ metres at 40 mph, or even a minute whilst adjusting the air con (covering half a mile at 40 mph)